March 2, 2021

Volume XI, Number 61

Advertisement

March 02, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 01, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

DOJ brings First Criminal Antitrust Charges for No-Poach Agreement Between Employers

Over four years after warning human resource professionals that agreements between competitors not to solicit each other’s employees—known as “no-poach” agreements—could result in criminal prosecution under antitrust laws, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) recently issued its first such indictment of its kind.

The DOJ’s 2016 Guidance for Human Resources Professionals delivered a stern reminder of the antitrust risks associated with anti-competitive agreements affecting labor markets, specifically wage-fixing and no-poach agreements between competitors that are not reasonably necessary to a broader legitimate collaboration (so-called “naked” agreements). The DOJ warned that it intended to proceed criminally against employers that entered into agreements of this type, explaining that “[t]hese types of agreements eliminate competition in the same irredeemable way as agreements to fix product prices or allocate customers, which have traditionally been criminally investigated and prosecuted as hardcore cartel conduct.” The agency, however, recognized that non-solicitation and other agreements impacting employees may be appropriate when necessary to a larger collaboration between employers, such as a joint venture for shared facilities.

The Guidance arose from a series of antitrust cases against Silicon Valley tech giants. In 2010, the DOJ sued Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel and Pixar over alleged agreements not to “cold call” each other’s highly-skilled employees. This, according to the DOJ, unlawfully restrained competition in the labor market. The parties entered into a settlement with the DOJ in 2011 that enjoined them from entering into agreements not to solicit, cold call, recruit or otherwise compete for employees absent specified legitimate justifications. That same year, employees of these and other companies brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 64,000 employees, alleging that the companies had conspired to depress wages by refraining from poaching one another’s highly-skilled employees, resulting in civil settlements in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Despite the strong warning to employers in 2016, years passed without the DOJ bringing criminal charges based on a no-poach agreement. That changed on Jan. 5, 2021, when the DOJ brought criminal charges against an outpatient medical facility in United States v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC and Scai Holdings, LLCIn the indictment, the DOJ alleges that Surgical Care Affiliates and its successor Scai (collectively, SCA) entered into “gentlemen’s agreements” with at least two different companies not to poach each other’s senior-level employees. The indictment cites numerous emails between human resource representatives and executives of SCA and the other two companies (identified only as Company A and Company B) specifically acknowledging the agreement and discussing several candidates who should not be approached or recruited because of the agreement.

The indictment alleges that the no-poach agreement was effectuated and enforced in several ways. SCA contacted recruiting agencies and instructed them not to solicit or contact senior-level employees of Companies A and B. SCA and the other companies also “monitored compliance . . . by requiring senior-level employees . . . who applied to the other company to notify their current employer that they were seeking other employment in order for their applications to be considered.” Finally, the companies agreed to, and did, alert each other when one of their employees applied for or inquired about employment at the other.

The conduct alleged in the SCA indictment involves a flagrant agreement not to solicit competitors’ employees. The DOJ obtained emails acknowledging the agreement and illustrating SCA and the other companies were abiding by it. Hence, the indictment confirms federal antitrust enforcers’ willingness, in the right case, to pursue criminal charges for anti-competitive agreements impacting labor markets. The DOJ and Federal Trade Commission also recently reinforced their willingness to take a hardline approach on naked agreements between employers in a joint statement addressing anticompetitive employment practices during the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, discussed in an April update.

While it remains to be seen whether the SCA indictment is an outlier—the result of particularly egregious conduct—employers should take seriously both the criminal and civil consequences of agreements that limit competition for employees, fix wages or otherwise unreasonably restrain competition in labor markets. Companies also should consult with employment and antitrust counsel before reaching agreements with competitors that may impact wages, benefits, hiring, retention or working conditions of employees.

Advertisement
Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 15
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Nina Beck Commercial Litigation Attorney
Associate

Nina Beck is commercial litigator and a member of the firm’s Financial Services Litigation and Government Investigations, White Collar and Compliance practice groups in the Milwaukee office. Nina represents a wide range of clients in state and federal court on a variety of civil matters, including commercial contract disputes, financial services litigation, fraudulent transfer actions, government investigations, unfair competition, consumer disputes, construction defect litigation, and other complex business litigation.

Nina further serves her community through her pro bono work....

414-287-9633
Paul J. Covaleski Litigation Attorney Godfrey & Kahn Madison, WI
Associate

Paul is an associate in the Madison office and a member of the Litigation Practice Group. Paul has litigated a variety of complex civil matters in Illinois and Wisconsin state and federal courts, primarily in the areas of labor & employment, products liability, antitrust, and insurance coverage.

Paul previously worked for a Chicago based law firm, focusing on commercial defense, products liability, and employment, matters. Prior to that, Paul worked as a judicial intern for the Honorable Thomas Waterman of the Iowa Supreme Court. While in law school, Paul served as a Note and...

608.284.2619
Allison W. Reimann Shareholder Madison Antitrust Contract/Commercial Litigation General Litigation
Shareholder

Allison helps clients decipher complex legal and factual puzzles with the goal of identifying effective and efficient strategies for positive outcomes. Allison’s diverse practice focuses on civil litigation, government investigations and antitrust in a broad complement of industries with a particular focus on health care.

A substantial portion of Allison’s practice is devoted to civil litigation and government investigations in the health care industry. Allison has represented a range of health care clients, including hospitals, health systems, health insurers, pharmaceutical and...

608-284-2625
Brian Spahn Internal Investigations Lawyer Godfrey Kahn Law Firm
Shareholder

Brian Spahn is a member of the litigation group of Godfrey & Kahn's Milwaukee office. Brian's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and white collar defense and internal investigations. He has handled banking and financial services litigation, antitrust, insurance, employment and trade secret misappropriation matters as well as managed complex class action defenses. Before joining the firm, Brian practiced law for over three years as part of the Litigation team at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP in Washington, D.C. Brian is licensed in...

414-287-9314
Advertisement
Advertisement